Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Imran Abdul Wahid Hasmi, challenged an externment order dated 30 December 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the appellate order dated 9 April 2015 dismissing his appeal. The show-cause notice dated 28 June 2014 proposed to extern the petitioner for two years from Greater Bombay, Suburban and Thane Districts, citing in-camera statements of two witnesses who were unwilling to depose publicly due to fear. The petitioner appeared before the inquiry officer and submitted a reply. The externment order was passed, and the appeal was dismissed. The High Court examined the legality of the orders. The Court found that the show-cause notice did not specify the area of externment clearly, as the order externed the petitioner from Mumbai Suburban District and Thane District, which was inconsistent with the notice. Additionally, the in-camera statements were vague and did not contain specific instances of the petitioner's activities causing alarm, harm or danger. The Court held that the externment order was unsustainable and quashed both the externment order and the appellate order. The petition was allowed, and rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 56(1)(a) and (b) - Show-cause notice under Section 59 - The show-cause notice must specify the area from which the person is proposed to be externed. In the present case, the notice proposed externment from Greater Bombay, Suburban and Thane Districts, but the order externed the petitioner from Mumbai Suburban District and Thane District, which was inconsistent. Held that the order is unsustainable (Paras 8-10). B) Bombay Police Act - Externment - In-camera statements - The in-camera statements of witnesses must contain specific instances of the petitioner's activities causing alarm, harm or danger. The statements in this case were vague and did not disclose any particulars. Held that the externment order based on such statements is invalid (Paras 11-13). C) Bombay Police Act - Externment - Section 59 - The show-cause notice must comply with the requirements of Section 59. The notice in this case did not specify the area of externment clearly, and the inquiry officer did not consider the petitioner's reply properly. Held that the order is vitiated (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the externment order passed under Section 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the appellate order dismissing the appeal are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the externment order dated 30 December 2014 and the appellate order dated 9 April 2015, and made rule absolute.
Law Points
- Externment order must specify the area of externment
- In-camera statements must contain specific instances
- Show-cause notice under Section 59 must comply with statutory requirements
- Section 56(1)(a) and (b) Bombay Police Act
- 1951
